Judges hear arguments in lakefront appeals case

Three 11th District Appeals Court judges heard oral arguments Tuesday to decide whether private property to the water's edge can be taken without the state paying the landowners fair compensation.

Judges Tim Cannon, Diane Grendell and Colleen Mary O'Toole listened to attorneys on both sides argue the case before a packed courtroom in Painesville.

The Ohio Attorney General's Office, National Wildlife Federation, Ohio Environmental Council and the League of Ohio Sportsmen are hoping to reverse a December ruling by Lake County Common Pleas Judge Eugene A. Lucci.

Advertisement

Lucci's decision, in determining the line that divides public and private property, stated people could still walk along beaches as long as they keep their feet wet.

He also ruled the Ohio Department of Natural Resources overstepped its authority by charging rent and leasing beach to landowners between the high water mark and the lake.

Thousands of property owners sued state officials in 2004 to affirm their rights, claiming their property line is at the low-water mark of the lake.

ODNR and other state entities argued the boundary is at the high-water mark and forced some property owners to lease land on the lakefront based on that policy.

Lucci found both sides wrong on that issue, ruling that the private-public ownership line is really at the water's edge, or shoreline.

Assistant Attorney General Cynthia Frazzini argued the judge did not properly take into account natural weather disasters such as floods.

"It's called the ordinary high-water mark for a reason," Frazzini said.

"We cannot have where the water is (right now) be the definition of Lake Erie. (Lucci) misconstrued tragically the difference between public vs. private rights."

But James Lang, one of the lawyers who represents the landowners, disagreed.

"The state of Ohio and the National Wildlife Federation are trying to stretch (the boundary) beyond the waters of Lake Erie to the dry land."

Lang said he agreed with much of Lucci's decision, but wants appellate judges to more clearly state the rights of the parties involved and to draw the water line to the low-water mark.